ARIZONA SSM CASE ARGUED: Arizona Republic

The Arizona Republic
August 19, 2003. Full story here, excerpts below.


"We're families. We're fathers. We're mothers. We love each other and our children just as other couples do," said attorney Michael S. Ryan, arguing that same-sex couples are entitled to the same protections as heterosexual couples.

But the state argued that marriage is based on community morals, has historically been limited to a man and a woman, is centered on their ability to procreate and designed to protect families. The issue is a matter for the state Legislature, not the courts, said Assistant Arizona Attorney General Kathleen Sweeney.

The three-judge panel seated to hear the case asked several questions of each side and promised to return a decision as quickly as possible.

Ryan believes that the case is bolstered by the June 26 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down sodomy laws in Texas.
In that case, Justice Antonin Scalia said the ruling put state laws banning same-sex marriages on "pretty shaky ground." During Tuesday's arguments, Ryan said gay couples are denied rights of marriage, including inheritance or the ability to make legal and medical decisions for a partner who is incapacitated.

Vice Chief Judge John C. Gemmill asked if those issues could be addressed through contracts and other legal paperwork. "Why should we have to jump through legal hoops?" Ryan asked. "And what if we miss one, a critical one, that we didn't think of."
Ryan said that laws about marriage have changed over time to allow interracial marriage. And that courts now also recognize the right for prisoners and indigents to marry, which used to be prohibited. Same-sex unions should be next, he said.

Ryan said he received a call Tuesday afternoon from the court saying it would take jurisdiction and issue a decision. But he thinks they may wait to see what courts in Massachusetts decide in a similar case.
posted by maggie at 3:29 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home